Nicholas L. Drury , Robyn L. Prueitt , Barbara D. Beck
{"title":"Commentary: Understanding IARC's PFOA and PFOS carcinogenicity assessments","authors":"Nicholas L. Drury , Robyn L. Prueitt , Barbara D. Beck","doi":"10.1016/j.yrtph.2024.105726","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In November 2023, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified PFOA as “carcinogenic to humans” (Group 1) and PFOS as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). We evaluated these classifications, considering the epidemiology, experimental animal, and mechanistic evidence. It is our opinion that the IARC Working Group overstated the available evidence for the carcinogenicity of PFOA and PFOS. Epidemiology studies have shown weak and inconsistent associations across studies. Studies reporting increased incidences of tumors in experimental animals exposed to PFOA or PFOS had statistically significant results that were driven by the presence of benign adenomas. The IARC Working Group used the key characteristics of carcinogens (KCCs, which comprise 10 chemical and/or biological properties of known human carcinogens) approach to upgrade the carcinogenicity classifications for PFOA and PFOS from initially lower classifications that were based on the strength of the epidemiology and experimental animal evidence. However, this is not a robust assessment of mechanistic evidence, as it fails to consider the quality, external validity, and relevance of the evidence. Rather than use the KCCs as a checklist of potential carcinogenic mechanisms, IARC should use a rigorous method to evaluate the plausibility and human relevance of mechanistic evidence.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":20852,"journal":{"name":"Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology","volume":"154 ","pages":"Article 105726"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230024001673","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In November 2023, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified PFOA as “carcinogenic to humans” (Group 1) and PFOS as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). We evaluated these classifications, considering the epidemiology, experimental animal, and mechanistic evidence. It is our opinion that the IARC Working Group overstated the available evidence for the carcinogenicity of PFOA and PFOS. Epidemiology studies have shown weak and inconsistent associations across studies. Studies reporting increased incidences of tumors in experimental animals exposed to PFOA or PFOS had statistically significant results that were driven by the presence of benign adenomas. The IARC Working Group used the key characteristics of carcinogens (KCCs, which comprise 10 chemical and/or biological properties of known human carcinogens) approach to upgrade the carcinogenicity classifications for PFOA and PFOS from initially lower classifications that were based on the strength of the epidemiology and experimental animal evidence. However, this is not a robust assessment of mechanistic evidence, as it fails to consider the quality, external validity, and relevance of the evidence. Rather than use the KCCs as a checklist of potential carcinogenic mechanisms, IARC should use a rigorous method to evaluate the plausibility and human relevance of mechanistic evidence.
期刊介绍:
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology publishes peer reviewed articles that involve the generation, evaluation, and interpretation of experimental animal and human data that are of direct importance and relevance for regulatory authorities with respect to toxicological and pharmacological regulations in society. All peer-reviewed articles that are published should be devoted to improve the protection of human health and environment. Reviews and discussions are welcomed that address legal and/or regulatory decisions with respect to risk assessment and management of toxicological and pharmacological compounds on a scientific basis. It addresses an international readership of scientists, risk assessors and managers, and other professionals active in the field of human and environmental health.
Types of peer-reviewed articles published:
-Original research articles of relevance for regulatory aspects covering aspects including, but not limited to:
1.Factors influencing human sensitivity
2.Exposure science related to risk assessment
3.Alternative toxicological test methods
4.Frameworks for evaluation and integration of data in regulatory evaluations
5.Harmonization across regulatory agencies
6.Read-across methods and evaluations
-Contemporary Reviews on policy related Research issues
-Letters to the Editor
-Guest Editorials (by Invitation)